Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, said something cryptic last Friday, shortly after the Israelis began their latest round of attacks on the Gaza Strip. Condemning Hamas’s conditions for accepting a ceasefire as “exaggerated and unnecessary,” he offered his condolences “to the families of the martyrs in Gaza who are fuel to those who trade in war. I oppose these traders, on both sides.”

What could he mean by that? Surely he was not suggesting that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and the leaders of Hamas, the Islamist organization that has effective control of the Gaza Strip, have a common interest in perpetuating the current bloodbath for at least a little while longer.

Yes, he was suggesting exactly that, and he was quite right. This is the third “Gaza War” since late 2008 (they come around more often than World Cups in soccer), and each one has followed the same pattern: Some Israelis are kidnapped and/or killed, Israel makes mass arrests of Hamas cadres in the West Bank and launches air and missile strikes on the Gaza Strip, Hamas lets the missiles fly, and away we go again.

So why would Netanyahu be willing to launch Israel’s third war against the Gaza Strip in eight years? Because the nature of his political alliances with other parties on the Israeli right, and especially with the settler lobby, means that he could not make a peace deal that the Palestinians would accept even if he wanted to (which he probably doesn’t).

That’s why he was instrumental in sabotaging the Oslo Accords — the theoretical basis for a peaceful “two-state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — during his first term as prime minister in 1996-99. Back in power in the past five years, his primary excuse for not moving on negotiations has been that Mahmoud Abbas could not deliver peace because he controlled only the West Bank, while the intransigent Hamas ruled the Gaza Strip.

Netanyahu knows, on the evidence of the previous two wars, that Hamas can be battered into temporary quiescence, but not destroyed. He also probably realizes that if he did manage to destroy Hamas, its place would be taken by a less corrupt and much more extreme Islamist outfit that might really hurt Israel. He is just doing this, with no expectation of victory, because Israeli public opinion demands it.

Hamas’s motive for wanting a little war is more obvious and urgent: It has lost almost all its funding sources. Iran stopped funding its budget to the tune of $20 million per month when Hamas sided with the Sunni rebels in the Syrian civil war. Egypt stopped helping it after last year’s military coup against Mohamed Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood government, and closed the tunnels under the border through which the Gaza Strip received most of its imported goods. Those imports were Hamas’s main source of tax revenue. Hamas is broke, and if it stays broke, its control over the Gaza Strip will weaken.

Whereas a war with Israel will rally the local Palestinians to its support. And if enough of them are killed, Egypt and the Gulf states may feel compelled to give Hamas financial aid. So the only real question is: How many dead Palestinians will satisfy both Netanyahu’s need to look tough and Hamas’s need to rebuild popular support at home and get financial help from abroad?

On past performance, the magic number is between 100 and a 1,000 dead; around 1,200 Palestinians were killed in the 2008-09 war, and 174 in 2012. After that, a ceasefire becomes possible, assuming that only a handful of Israelis have been killed, which is guaranteed by the fact that Israeli air and missiles strikes are 100 times more efficient at killing than Hamas’s pathetic rockets.

We have already crossed the lower threshold of that range of Palestinian deaths in the current mini-war, so a ceasefire is theoretically possible now, but both sides will probably press on for at least another few days. Then the ceasefire will be agreed, and both sides will start thinking about the next round, only a few years from now. But the dead will stay dead.

Gwynne Dyer is an independent journalist whose articles on world affairs are published in 45 countries.

Comments

Comments

Your name*Email*Comment*

Recent comments

Joe

July 15, 2014 - 07:14

What a brilliant unbiased analyses, Gwynne !
You write, "(Benjamin Netanyahu) also probably realizes that if he did try to destroy Hamas, its place would be taken by a less corrupt and
much more extreme Islamist outfit that might really hurt Israel."
Yet, in January 2006 you attributed Hamas' electoral victory to the fact that, "...the old mainstream liberation movement, Fatah, had squandered its credibility in ten years of corrupt and incompetent rule..."
So, where does corrupt Palestinian leadership end, Gwynne ? Does it end as corrupt Arab leadership ended in Iraq ? In Syria ? In Egypt ? In Libya ?
Of course, Hamas' unremitting rocket assaults on Israel for the last 10 years would have little to do with perpetuating this "cycle of violence". Or is it the military response of those evil Israelis to Hamas' rockets that has precipitated the current and past blood-letting ?
I guess your incisive commentaries are just too painful for the Zionist controlled media to abide. It at least explains your being consigned to the hinterland of political punditry.